Can the criminal justice system, as it stands today, address complex needs and treat families of victims justly? In this podcast, Dr. Penelope Tong and Baljeet Kaur discuss the need for the criminal justice system to expand its imagination of justice for families of murder victims.

In this podcast, Project 39A’s Director (Sentencing) Neetika Vishwanath speaks to Dr. Mayur Suresh (Senior Lecturer, SOAS University of London) on his recently published book ‘Terror Trials: Life and Law in Delhi’s Courts’. The book is an ethnographic study of Delhi’s Tis Hazari court over 14 months during which Dr. Suresh followed 18 terrorism trials. In this conversation, Dr. Suresh reflects on the relevance of ethnography as a method of legal research and the value of studying everyday life in trial courts. Looking beyond the exceptionalism framework in academia that is often used to describe terrorism laws and trials, ethnography allowed Dr. Suresh to capture ways in which terror accused use legal procedures and technicalities to engage with the law.

In the backdrop of an alarming rate of executions in Singapore in 2022, Kirsten gives the listeners a first-hand account. The Podcast discusses the anti-drug trafficking law in Singapore, the 2012 amendment and its problematic implementation, discriminatory use of the death penalty, and hefty fines on death penalty lawyers.

Apart from the specific concerns the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 raises, there are broader issues raised by this decision which need to be addressed. What is the purpose of having special laws like PMLA in the first place? Are these purposes served by the current framework? Maneka Khanna gets in conversation with Shri Singh to explore these questions.

Are provisions of the PMLA violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution? Aditya Mehta talks to Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate, who argued before the Supreme Court  concerning this specific issue. 

The recent dismissal of the challenges to the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has given grounds for much criticism. Irrespective of the controversy surrounding the judgment, it stands to be the law on the question of money laundering for now. In this conversation between Harsh Srivastava and Arshdeep Singh Khurana, we take a detour from the critique and address how the judgment may be used as part of a defence strategy in money-laundering cases.

What went wrong in the Supreme Court’s recent decision concerning the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002? Was it a faulty interpretation of the provisions of the Act? A misplaced application of precedent? A general lack of clarity concerning the principles at play? Shivani Misra of Project 39A speaks to Senior Advocate Aman Lekhi on what the Supreme Court could have done differently while balancing the rights of the individual against the State’s power.

In light of the Supreme Court quashing the Delhi High Court judgement disallowing the termination of pregnancy after 24 weeks; Anupriya Dhonchak speaks to Dr. Aparna Chandra about the undue barriers that hinder access to safe abortion in India.

In the backdrop of the US Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, this conversation considers the impact of paternalistic state policies in undermining the bodily integrity and personal autonomy of women, and argues for locating the right to abortion within the framework of substantive equality.

Hrishika Jain and Prof. Aya Gruber discuss the carceral form of feminism’s engagement with sexual violence, its implications for victims and feminism’s own transformative goals, and the unfulfilled promise of the #MeToo movement as an alternative form of feminist politics.

Shruthi speaks to Prof Tassé about what intellectual disability is, who can diagnose it, the evolution of jurisprudence on Intellectual disability in the US and the challenges associated with presenting Intellectual Disability in court in the Indian context.

Adrija Ghosh and Lubhyathi Rangarajan discuss about the developments in the Supreme Court hearings on the batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 124A and what it means for the same to be diluted, repealed or struck down.

Adrija Ghosh and Dr, Durba Mitra discuss the idea of ‘deviant female sexuality’ that became foundational to modern social thought in colonial India, and continues to be used in contemporary India to regulate and control the lives and bodies of women and sexual minorities.

In this episode of the P39A Podcast, Devina Malaviya speaks to Philip Mayor of American Civil Liberties Union, Michigan about the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) in the criminal justice system. They discuss the fallibility of the technology and how its use impacts the investigation process. They further explore FRT’s tendency to give the colour of science to biases present in the system.

In this episode of the P39A Podcast, Dr. Amrita Ibrahim, Dhanya Rajendran and Hartosh Singh Bal discuss the institutional incentives and assumptions that inform the creation of a media ‘crime story’. The conversation explores the lens that the media adopts in reporting crime, and the perspectives it leaves out, and highlights possible paths towards a more sensitised and ethical coverage of criminality.

This episode of the 39A podcast discusses the science behind forensic DNA profiling and its scientific and legal practice in India. The conversation further looks at the DNA Technology (Use & Application) Regulation Bill, 2019 and how the current version of the Bill overlooks the issues with the forensic science system currently functioning in India.

Criminal law practitioners from different parts of the country share their experiences on the varied approaches undertaken by each jurisdiction in dealing with the challenges posed by the pandemic and the impact of the transition from physical to online proceedings on access to justice.

In this episode of The 39A Podcast, Professor Vijay Raghavan and Dr. Anup Surendranath discuss the institutional imagination of prisons in India and the manner in which it has interacted with the COVID-19 pandemic. The conversation looks at whether the measures taken by prisons to control the pandemic were at best management strategies and failed to incorporate ‘right to health’ perspectives.

In this episode of The 39A Dialogues, Senior Advocate and criminal law practitioner Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan discusses what sets apart the stringent bail provision under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 and makes it almost impossible for an accused to secure bail once charged for offences of ‘terrorist activities’ and ‘terrorist organization’ under the Act. She comments on the decision of the Delhi High Court from June 2021, granting bail to three student activists – Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita while coming to the finding that that their acts of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 did not meet the standard of a ‘terrorist act’ as defined under the UAPA. Ms. Ramakrishnan argues that the decision of the Delhi High Court is logically sound and does not come in conflict with the Supreme Court’s 2019 landmark ruling in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali.

In this episode of the 39A Dialogues, commemorating the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, human rights lawyers Babloo Lointongbam (Human Rights Alert, Manipur) and Henri Tiphagne (People’s Watch, Tamil Nadu) share their experiences of working, supporting and building relationships with victims of torture.